Recommended
Follow Me
Previously
by date
by Category
- Baseball (11)
- Basketball (1)
- Big-Dumb-Mark (3)
- Bike (1)
- Blog (1)
- Development (2)
- Ebay (1)
- Frisco (1)
- Funnies (55)
- Funny (14)
- Fyi (43)
- Garrett (6)
- General (86)
- Halloween (1)
- House (5)
- Jellyfish (1)
- Kicker (1)
- Kids (40)
- Landlord (3)
- Luck (1)
- Mlb (7)
- Movies (19)
- Murrayhill (2)
- Ncaa (1)
- News (32)
- On-The-Town (18)
- Oregon (1)
- Police (1)
- Pumpkin (1)
- Rant (15)
- Roto-Bb (13)
- Sara (6)
- Soccer (1)
- Software (2)
- Spam (3)
- Sports-Pool (1)
- Tax (1)
- Technology (5)
- Tv (15)
- Twitter (3)
- Video (1)
- Web-Assignment (21)
- Webdesign (52)
- Wii (2)
- Work (3)
- Writings (6)
Search
LinkRoll
22 row(s) meet your search criteria for February , 2004.
Goto page: 1 2 3
More Democratic Debate Fun - February 27, 2004
Hopefully, everybody took out their bingo cards and watched last nights Democratic debate. If you missed it, I invite you to head on over to Justin's and checkout his great recap of the event.
Excerpt:
King: "Let's discuss, now, the death penalty."
Kucinich: "Instead of executing prisoners, we should make them work in floral shops, arranging flowers into decorative patterns. Then those flowers should be given to everyone equally. For free."
King: "He he he. You never fail to crack me up. Anyway, let's talk about healthcare."
Kucinich: (raising his hand) "Ooooh! Oooooh!"
King: "We'll start with the frontrunner, and then move on to his running mate, the black guy, and Horschak."
Intolerable Cruelty - February 27, 2004
Marie and I watched Intolerable Cruelty the other night. I've wanted to see this movie for some time because the trailers of George Clooney were funny, and the screen chemistry between him and Catherine Zeta-Jones seemed to resonate with me. Besides, I think she is a most beautiful looking woman, and the combination of the the long hair (I didn't like the Chicago look) and the wonderful costume designers in this movie, she is absolutely yummy. My eyes were drawn to her in every scene.
---pause to reflect----
OK. So the movie. Miles Massey (Clooney), is a prominent self-loving Los Angeles divorce attorney with all the material possesions he could want. He is on the opposite side of a case from a devastating beauty, Marylin Rexroth (Zeta-Jones). He wins the case in unlikely fashion, and she sets a course for revenge. The movie was Directed by the Cohen brothers, also known for O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Fargo, and Raising Arizona - each odd, and enjoyable movies on their own. If you've seen any of those three, and enjoyed the humor therein, then this movie is for you. There were many out loud funny moments, and quirkly lines that made me snicker. The story was good, held together pretty well. Marie actually caught the twist before I did - probably because I couldn't believe the woman could do such harm (blind attraction I guess).
This movie could be pretty much described as a screwball comedy. Clooney was funny, and Zeta-Jones played the dangerous beauty well. I thought the plot was funny, clever, and it had me entertained almost the entire time. A very good rental.
Did I mention that Catherine Zeta-Jones is hot? mmmm. I think I may have alluded to that.
Poetic Chedder - February 27, 2004
This week, the order of the day is rhyming or responding in verse, so it's time for a little Poetic Cheddar chatter.
- What is your favorite poem or verse? Why?
Reading "good" poetry is for me too hard.
But I have in the past written verse for a card.
I wrote something nice when my wife and I met.
I read it at a party the night we were wed.
- Describe your family.
Mark brings home the bacon; doesn't care about the fat.
He's always in charge (she said I could say that).
Marie loves her job as a stay at home mom.
But with two toddlers at home it’s not often calm.
Garrett is four, and likes being the big brother.
Sara is two and can scream like no other.
- What line in a song or poem do people always screw up that drives you nuts?
I'm not easily drawn to irrational thought.
But some days I think that folks should be shot.
When they say "irregardless" and claim they forgot.
They should ask for a refund on the education they bought. - Are there poems or songs that you intentionally change the words to?
For years Dr. Demento was my Sunday night pal.
From then on I was hooked on Weird Al.
So when Queen sings "Another one bites the dust."
I can't help but sing "Another one rides the bus."
- Make up a standard limerick about something funny that happened in the last couple of days.
There once was a boy named Garrett.
Who wouldn't even touch a Carrot.
but we got the upper hand
When he asked if he can
bring home a South American Parrot. - How about a haiku about your last intense emotional moment?
Connected Broadband;
A high-speed wireless hookup;
Laptop's embracing
- What's caught your eye in the news lately?
Some friends have noticed a bit of a "Drift".
My lean to the left has begun to cause a rift.
The influence is growing from the conservative right.
I think in November, it will be a close fight.
Carnival of the Vanities - February 25, 2004
The 75th Carnival of the Vanities is supported by San Diego based DaGoddess this week. She put lots of work into it and the result is uplifting. Go there and see what I mean.
If you are new to the Carnival, it is a great way to discover new places on the web that you may not have otherwise stumbled upon. Try it - you may just find something you like.
A Bug's Life - February 25, 2004
I came home last night and was greeted at the door by a happy little two year old girl with a spoonful of cake frosting.
If this turns out to be her dinner, I think maybe it was a tough day for Mommy and Daddy's dinner might be coming from a box.
Then the little girl starts looking at me and laughing maniacally - obviously a contrived laughter, but funny anyway. So I do what any other good Dad does - I do it back to her. She does it again, and I do too. Little girl runs to little boy on couch - maniacal laughter. I run up to grumpy Mommy - maniacal laughter. I get a smirk. uh oh. I run over to boy, join with girl in maniacal laughter.
Boy says "Daddy, you bug me. Stop bugging me."
I look over, and Mommy is doubled over laughing.
Mission accomplished. Scrambled eggs and bacon for dinner.
Scrabble Mojo - February 25, 2004
Pholph's Scrabble Generator      My Scrabble© Score is: 23. What is your score? Get it here. |
Optimism Gone Awry - February 25, 2004
If you go to any volume of sporting events in your life, you've probably seen this before; some guy who think's he's being romantic, conspires with the sporting organization and drops "THE QUESTION" on an unsuspecting girlfriend, for all to witness on the jumbotron. In my recollection, the answer has always been "Yes."
Who do you feel sorrier for; him or her?
Seabiscuit - Add - February 24, 2004
I love movies. Before kids, it was almost an every weekend occurrance that Marie and I would go out to see the current releases in the theaters - sometimes even on opening weekend. What you can't do in a theater is press pause, replay some line of dialog that you missed, or soothe a somehow awoken, crying child. So now we rent movies more than go to the theater. I think we see fewer movies, but theoretically, we are lots more selective and see better movies. At the very least we save lots of money.
What you also can't do in a theater that you can do at home is talk about certain scenes as they are happening, or about what you can see is coming up next. Marie and I both lamented the slow pace of the beginning. But we both were pretty silent during the latter 2/3 of the film.
Except at one point just prior to the match race with War Admiral. Marie, all cuddled up on the couch with a blanket and her water bottle, looks over at me and asks;
"Does he win?"
I started to laugh, and realizing that she'd done it again, she starts to laugh too.
"No, the horse falls on Red and kills him, the horse is put down, Howard leaves his wife to be Smith's gay lover. I guess we can just stop the movie right here" I said with just a hint of sarcasm.
Seabiscuit - February 24, 2004
Marie and I watched Seabiscuit last night in an effort to see at least a couple of this year's Oscar nominated movies. We are up to two now, Mystic River a week ago and now this one. I had hoped to get Lost in Translation at the store but none were available (still hope to get it before Sunday), Master/Commander I don't think is out on DVD yet, and I'm not really interested in seeing Lord of the Rings (I haven't seen any of the other two prequels, nor have I read or have any interest in books).
Synopsis - With the country in the grip of the Great Depression, a small, spirited racehorse emerges as a national hero as he becomes a racing phenomenon. Seabiscuit's story brings together the lives of three men — owner Charles Howard (Jeff Bridges), trainer Tom Smith (Chris Cooper), and jockey Red Pollard (Tobey Maguire) — whose united belief in the horse's potential changes all of their lives.
This movie ran for 2 hours and 21 minutes, and after about the first 45, I looked at Marie and wondered if it wouldn't be better in fast forward mode. It really worked hard to show the difficulties of the three characters early in life before they came together with the horse. To me it seemed like a non-stop progression of short vignettes that didn't seem to move the plot forward. This is what I had worried about when we saw Mystic River, that the pace of the movie would be so slow that it would get boring.
After the characters were brought together it seemed that the pace of the movie picked up dramatically. Throughout the movie though, there was a number of segments with voiceover narration about the history of the depression over black and white pictures from the period. Although I believe the filmmakers thought this was an important aspect of the story to underscore why this little horse became such a favorite of the public, I thought this was unnecessary (shameless horse cliche coming up) and was like pulling the reigns on a racehorse to slow him down.
From a plot construction perspective, it was interesting to see the movie build to actually three climaxes: the first was the $100k Santa Anita Derby, the second was the duel with War Admiral, and the third was the final Derby after the injury. Each successive climax was more emotional than the last, which made you forget the "tar pit" you waded through in the beginning.
This was a good movie. I don't think it will win the Best Picture award, it wouldn't even win my Best Picture, and I've only seen two of the nominated films. But it was certainly a good rental, and worth the 2+ hours. Just be prepared in the beginning - it gets better.
Johnson/Tankersley L.D.P. (Licensed Domestic Partners) - February 24, 2004
Here goes the Bush Administration again, stepping up to bat for right wing conservative nutcases regarding a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. For the record, I'm not gay, I don't have any close friends that are openly gay, and I'm no activist so you won't see me carrying the torch for gay rights. I'm a pretty conservative, traditional, "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone," sports loving, rough and tumble, pee your name in the snow, drive fast, machine loving, History Channel watching type of man's man. I wouldn't be very comfortable if I knew I was showering at the gym with a gay man, and I don't like to see gay people issuing public displays of affection to each other. Homophobic? Some might say a little. So what.
But I just can't see why this needs to be part of our constitution. If the Government wants to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, maybe they should make couples go to pre-marital counseling, and outlaw divorce. If you knew that "til death do us part" was for real, it might have a bit more impact on people. And besides, how is the sanctity of a happily heterosexual marriage threatend by Bob and Steve living next door?
I think what is driving this debate is the definition of a simple word: marriage. Craig has an idea that the Bush Administration should get together with the publishers of dictionaries to define "marriage" more specifically, and to invent a word to "describe the relationship between any two consenting adults."
My plan is to create an official designation that represents two consenting adults in a monogamus domestic relationship. This designation would be called a "Licensed Domestic Partnership." Those who have asked the government to sanction their arrangement would apply for a license, be assigned a unique numeric taxpayer identification number, and will be given a designation of LDP to be used in conjuction with a combination of their last names - hence the title of this post - order to be designated by the couple. All assets of the two individuals will become property of the LDP, unless specifically excluded in the agreement (like a pre-nuptial agreement). All assets acquired after execution of the agreement will be property of the LDP (unless specified in the agreement).
Upon dissolution of the partnership, appropriate taxes will be levied and the assets distributed evenly, or in a manner specified in the agreement. Violation of the terms of the agreement (it's monogomous remember) by either party, can be grounds for termination of the agreement, and subject to penalties. It will be just like the "Limited Liability Corporation" (LLC) that can be set up now.
Marriage, will be the responsibility of churches to administer, if the couple decides they need that word attached to their partnership and they belong to a church that will sanction such a union. This way we maintain a complete separation of Church and State, that the Constitution already provides for, and gay boys and girls can be "married" when they want to, and most importantly, EQUAL RIGHTS can be bestowed upon them without regard to the current morality of our elected government.
Comments